Tag Archives: appeals

Government Shut Down and the NLRB

When the shut down occurred, the NLRB closed its doors.  What is interesting is that the NLRB’s website is also down.

There are several notes that need to be pointed down.  Even though the NLRB is shut down, unfair labor practice charges’ statute of limitations of 6 months keeps running.  The statute of limitations is the time that a person/organization/company has to enforce their rights.  After that period, they may lose their right to do so.

The federal register provides:

Extensions for time of filing cannot apply to the 6-month period provided by Section 10(b) of the Act for filing charges, 29 U.S.C. 169(b), or to Applications for awards of fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504.

….

(emphasis added).

The federal register also cautions persons to file the charge via fax and to serve the charges themselves.  The federal register states:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, persons wishing to file a charge pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act, and for whom the 6-month period of Section 10(b) may expire during the interruption in the Board’s normal operations, are cautioned that the operation of Section 10(b) during an interruption in the Board’s normal operation is uncertain.

Consequently, it would be prudent to file the charge during the interruption in the Board’s operations by faxing a copy of the charge to the appropriate Regional Office.

…..

Moreover, persons filing a charge are reminded that it is their responsibility… to serve a copy of the charge upon the person against whom the charge is made.  While Regional Directors ordinarily serve a copy of the charge on a person against whom the charge is made as a matter of courtesy, they do not assume responsibility for such service, and it is unlikely that the Agency will be able to serve the charges during any period of shutdown due to a lapse in appropriated funds.

(emphasis added).

In summary, you must do as follows:

  1. Serve the unfair labor practice charge and the applications of fees and other expenses via fax.
  2. Serve the papers to the person against whom the charge is made.

Regarding other issues, the federal register explains that they are postponed.  These include hearings in front of Administrative Law Judges, pre and post election hearings, and filing or serving of documents (including briefs and appeals).

via NLRB |.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under federal, labor, Minnesota, NLRB, Pending Legislation, rules, union

Government Can Track Cellphones Without Warrants

Mostly everyone has a cell phone.  A lot of smartphones have GPS capabilities.  This can be handy when you are looking for directions and you are lost.  However, what about being tracked?  For instance, unless you change your privacy settings, your photos will keep track of where you took the picture and what time.

The question the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided is whether the government needs a warrant to track you.  In In re: Application of the U.S.A. for Historical Cell Site Data (July 30, 2013 5th Cir. Ct.), the court ruled that obtaining cell-location information without a warrant  did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

When we think of the Fourth Amendment we remember that a search and seizure may require a warrant.  If there is no expectation of privacy, i.e. in a garbage bag we got rid of, then the government wouldn’t need a warrant.  However, if we have an expectation of privacy, i.e. to enter your house, then the government must have a warrant.

An expectation of privacy usually is the crux of a search and seizure case.  Here, the ACLU argued that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are being tracked for a long period of time and the data gathered is collected in great detail.

In this case, this argument was not discussed by the court.

Why would this not be discussed?  The Fourth Amendment deals with government actions.  In other words,  the seizure or search has to be collected by the government.  In a similar case, the Supreme Court had decided that the government must obtain a warrant if it wants to install a GPS tracking device.  See United States v. Jones (2012).

However, this case was found to be different.  The reason for this is because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the information was collected by a third-party, i.e. the cell phone carrier.  The court explained,

Where a third party collects information in the first instance for its own purposes, the Government claims that it can obtain this information later with a [section] 2703(d) order, just as it can subpoena other records of a private entity.  We agree.

Id. (citations omitted).

Here, the government was not installing a GPS tracking device.  The Government was accessing a business record owned by carriers.  The court stated:

… cell site information is clearly a business record.  The cell service provider collects and stores historical cell site data for its own business purposes, perhaps to monitor or optimize service on its network or to accurately bill its customers for the segments of its network that they use.   The Government does not require service providers to record this information or store it.  The providers control what they record and how long these records are retained.

Consequently, the court found that the Government did not need a warrant.

via Cops Can Track Cellphones Without Warrants, Appeals Court Rules | Threat Level | Wired.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, courts, discovery, electronic discovery, federal, legal decision, legal research, Privacy Rights, technology

DC upholds challenge to Health Care Rule

In San Miguel Hosp. Corp. v. NLRB, ___F.3d___ D.C. Cir. 11/02/12, The DC Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRB’s decision to certify the Union as the sole representative of a unit that comprised professionals and non-professional employees.

The Hospital raised two main arguments.

  1. The Hospital argued that the Health Care Rule violated Section 9 of the NLRA because it endorses the extent of a union’s organization as the controlling factor in unit determination.
  2. The Hospital also argued that unit certification is improper when the unit comprises professional and non-professional employees.

The Court responded to these arguments as follows.

  1. The Court held the argument to have “zero merit.”  First, the Court explained, the administrative record makes “quite clear that the factors the Board considered in deciding upon the eight listed units included ‘uniqueness of function; training, education and licensing; wages, hours and working conditions; supervision; employee interaction; and factors relating to the collective bargaining agreement.'”  Second, the Court stated that the NLRA only requires that the extent of organization not be the controlling factor.  Therefore, the “consideration of that factor among others is entirely lawful.”
  2. Regarding the second Hospital’s argument, the Court highlighted the fact that the Hospital never challenged this issue.  The Court also stated that there is no precedent, in the NLRB or Courts, that addressed this specific issue.  As a consequence, the Court concluded that no remand was necessary since the Hospital waived any subsequent challenge.

In plain words, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed two main conclusions, supported by precedent.

First, that if you don’t raise a challenge below — you cannot raise a challenge in appeal.

Second, that the NLRA Section 9(c) provides that the NLRB can use the extent of the organization as a factor, as long as it is not controlling.  Since the NLRB used a plethora of factors, it was clear that it did not decide the issue solely on the extent of union organization.

What we can learn from this case is simple.  Raise all challenges in the court below to make sure you preserve these challenges in an appeal.

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate, courts, labor, legal decision, NLRB, union